Kevin John Eke v Charles Henry Parsons

In 2010 the appellant, Kevin Eke, agreed to purchase the respondent’s membership interest in a close corporation for R7.775 million, nominating a family trust as purchaser and binding himself as surety and co‑principal debtor. After defaulting on payment, the respondent sued for the outstanding amount and applied for summary judgment. On the day of hearing, the parties concluded a settlement agreement, which was made an order of court. The settlement provided for payment of R10.3 million in instalments and stipulated that, upon breach, the respondent could re‑enrol the summary judgment application and that Eke would not oppose it. Eke later breached the settlement. The respondent re‑enrolled summary judgment. Eke sought to oppose it, raising various contractual, statutory and procedural defences, including reliance on the National Credit Act and section 34 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the defences, and the matter ultimately came before the Constitutional Court on limited issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the legal effect of settlement agreements made orders of court, confirming their finality and enforceability. It affirms a substance‑over‑form approach to civil procedure and recognises judicial discretion to relax procedural rules in the interests of justice. It also delineates the limits of section 34 in the context of consensual settlement orders, reinforcing the importance of finality in litigation.